Continuatino of previous thread
I have faced catastrophe all of my life. Although I have personally been spared, many others have died in sudden, unspeakably violent and horrifying circumstances. They usually had little warning because it is nearly impossible to predict the cause of their demise with certainty. Even so, because of the risk to human life, there is an enormous scientific effort made to predict the phenomena and warn the public. These predictions are based upon vague, imperfect and often misinterpreted data. They are often wrong. The best that science can do is provide general advice and imprecise warnings.
I live in Tornado Alley. I have been through many many “tornado warnings” but I have never even seen a tornado. The National Weather Service (NWS) monitors every severe thunderstorm in CONUS 24/7/365. They more or less understand the physics of a tornado. NWS constantly collects and analyzes enormous amounts of precise raw atmospheric data in near real time. This data is fed into sophisticated atmospheric computer models.
Even so, the science of predicting tornados is, to say the least, imperfect. For instance, today there is roughly a 60% chance that a tornado will form within the boundaries of any particular tornado watch. This is a great improvement from 1970, when it was only 31%.
But tornado watches cover about 25,000 square miles each. Your individual chances of being at risk from a tornado in a tornado watch area are miniscule. Even when a tornado warning is issued, the odds of actually being struck by the tornado are very small.
But despite the shortcomings, improvements in the accuracy of forecasting have been made. And lives have been saved as a result. While imprecise, it is not a futile exercise.
Perhaps the science of pandemic prediction will see the same progression as that of tornado forecasting. There was once a time when there were no tornado warnings. In fact, the forecasting of tornadoes was officially banned. According to the Storm Prediction Center (a division of NOAA), “Before 1950, at various stages of development of the Weather Bureau, the use of the word “tornado” in forecasts was at times strongly discouraged and at other times forbidden, because of a fear that predicting tornadoes may cause panic.” link This ban was revoked in 1950
Fear of causing panic. This is often the excuse for withholding information. But perhaps the real fear isn’t of panic but reflects the insecurity of those who are supposed to have the answers. Meteorologists are expected to be able to forecast severe weather. Repeatedly issuing wildly inaccurate forecasts for tornados wouldn’t have spoken well of their skills. The ban on tornado forecasting is reminiscent of Abraham Lincoln’s advice, “’Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.”
Today, we have changing WHO pandemic alert scales and debates about whether it is possible to predict a pandemic. Some are indignant and demand a direct prediction of when the next pandemic will emerge. Others decry the lack of reliable data and insist that it can’t be done. One thing is certain; science, at the current time, has no definitive answers.
It seems quaint and anachronistic to believe that tornado forecasting should be discouraged because of a fear that it could cause panic. Perhaps as scientific knowledge increases, pandemic forecasting will likewise mature and this debate will someday seem similarly odd. One day, we may say, “Of course we can and should provide pandemic forecasts—why wouldn’t we?” Pandemic forecasts will probably never be perfect, but perfection can be the enemy of the good.
Many noble scientific advances have been motivated by a desperate problem which begs for a novel and useful (if not perfect) remedy. These are desperate times.
this thread continues the discussion from
http://www.fluwikie2.com/pmwiki.php?n=Forum.ChancesForAPandemic
and
http://www.fluwikie2.com/pmwiki.php?n=Forum.ChanceForAPandemic2
and
http://www.fluwikie2.com/pmwiki.php?n=Forum.ChanceForAPandemic3
yes, the WHO pandemic alert scales !
When you resort to a “no data”, “no prediction is possible” kind of
argument, then, how do you justify the existence of the WHO-scales ?
Don’t they qualify as data ? How can you even say things like :
“the pandemic threat is larger now than it was in 1985″ when you
completely deny the predictability and usefulness of probability
estimation of the pandemic threat ?
It’s inconsistent and contradictory.
I predict this will be recognized as one of the major faults in pandemic
preparation and awareness in the aftermath of the next pandemic.
How can it be, that common folks and flu-forum posters have estimates
which differ so much ? While the experts don’t give numbers
but do give unclear and probably deliberately ambiguous statements like
“not if,but when” - but when being asked then they specify that they
meant any pandemic not only H5N1 and without time-frame.
Still, I have problems with assigning numbers to it. Even recognising a number would be valuable if we had it. Hey, maybe a silly number (explained as such) is better than no number?
From the older threads, if we ever do ask for 500 somewhat qualified opinions and produce a chart with their estimates, what would that chart look like? We don’t know unless we try, so do try.
Questions:
How to move onwards:
We will be treating this as a part-time exercise anyway: those who feel it’s futile will give it zero time, and others will give it some minutes (and some energy) a week.
If anyone feels it’s dangerous to try, please say so.
Of course, anonymous posters can’t create wikipages on fluwikie.com. :)
This is ironic. Sometimes (more often than not, in chaotic times?) outliers are right. (And look at how the author of the article is identified as a film director in his signature, even though he insists he’s not and wikipedia is wrong about him.)
lugon, a number is here only a way to improve your communication and to
express more clearly what you think. \\\We have some charts from the fluwiki survey or the curevents poll. The deviation (spread) of the estimates
was quite large although still better than just randomly picking a number.
Expert numbers should be better.
Questions: what’s your estimate of the probability that there will be a pandemic starting within the next 1 (2,3) years ?
What’s your expectation value of the number of H5N1 deaths in the next
1 (2,3,) years ?
experts can remain anonymous, we would have only the numbers and the experts but not who gave which number. But I hope that some experts will stand to their numbers and justify them and discuss them in public and with other experts.
“Should” and “better” are value-heavy words. You mean you personally expect a narrower spread of the estimates? If that’s the case, why do you expect that?
Your short replies (05:13 and 05:17) answer most (but not all) of the detailed questions I posed at 04:17. Now, how do you suggest the practical problem of “getting it done” could be aproached? Who poses the questions, to whom exactly, and how is data collected?
What you want to ask starts to look like the following. See if you agree or if you would change it. And tell us about the practicalities.
Dear Expert,
Opinions are being collected about the following questions.
Opinions will be anonymised, so that your response will not be linked to your name in any case, unless you personally want to speak publicly about it.
Your participation will not be published unless you explicitly let us (now or later).
Thank you.
>Should and better are value-heavy words. You mean you personally >expect a narrower spread of the estimates?
yes
>If that’s the case, why do you expect that?
experts are more competent ;-) They have more common sources. As I said, when there is enough discussion I expect they would all finally agree. But that “enough” could be too much to be practicable. But now that you ask, I looked at the Tufts data again and I am becoming skeptical.
>Your short replies (05:13 and 05:17) answer most (but not all) >of the detailed questions I posed at 04:17.
so many posts…
>Now, how do you suggest the practical problem of getting it done >could be aproached? Who poses the questions, to whom exactly, >and how is data collected?
we could ask experts by email, but they usually refuse to give numbers. We could send a request to CDC,WHO and ask to form the panels as they did in 1976. Or we could get a magazine or such to host the story.Maybe they can even periodically update it. E.g. once a week if it’s a weekly magazine. Or a student or scientist or journalist who wants to publish a paper on it. Like the Tufts,Fischhoff,Brilliant’s initiative. That would also be more reliable if they officially guarantee the anonymity of the experts.
>What you want to ask starts to look like the following. >See if you agree or if you would change it. And tell us >about the practicalities. > > > >Dear Expert, >Opinions are being collected about the following questions. >Opinions will be anonymised, so that your response will not >be linked to your name in any case, unless you personally >want to speak publicly about it. >Your participation will not be published unless you explicitly >let us (now or later). >Thank you. > > > >( ) Yes, I want you to include my name in the list of people > asked to provide their opinions.
that list could be published without their consent. We still won’t know which of those finally agreed to paticipate.
>( ) No, I do not want that to happen.
>( ) I will tell you after I see the results (before the public does).
>What is your estimate of the probability that there will be a pandemic
> starting within the next 12 months? ( )%
>Same for 24 months? ( )%
>Same for 36 months? ( )%
>What is your expectation value of the number of H5N1 deaths in the
>next 12 months (in number of individuals, millions, or whatever figure is apropriate - please specify)?
expectation value is clearly defined mathematically, but I’m not sure whether virologists,epidemiologists, other experts know about this. Suggestions how to better formulate it ?
>Same for 24 months? >Same for 36 months? >Further comments:
OK.
I have seen gs and now ‘anonymous’ ask this question over and over again over many months. Two things strike me when I read the responses:
1) I have yet seen another person on the forum persuaded to take up the banner to the same degree (of obsessiveness) as anonymous/gs. Clearly you are NOT persuading anyone. And clearly this discussion is not going anywhere.
2) The people who have participated vigorously in this discussion (and previous ones) have managed to settle on a unsatisfactory but reasonably comfortable relationship with uncertainty, and have moved on to other more important things like preps or helping others.
I would suggest you do the same.
Anon_22- Many, many months ago I suggested that a diagnosis of OCD would be in order. I stand by my previous opinion.
“perhaps the real fear isn’t of panic but reflects the insecurity of those who are supposed to have the answers.”
People like having what seem like solid answers, more than such are physically possible, given the size and complexity of the world.
anon_22,Melanie,Eccles : just typical Anglo-American behaviour to attack the
author instead of the arguments. I am still waiting for a fruitful discussion
contribution from you. You rarely ever address my arguments and replies.
instead I keep hearing:
“no data” - me:here is the data,(link,link,..) - “no data, period.”
It’s boring to argue with that.
some people were persuaded : monotreme,lugon(?),LIP,Bo,cilibrar,StLBill.
Scientists like Fischhoff,Neustadt,Fineberg,May,Alexander,
share my position. I’m not aware of any mathematician or logician
or statician who opposes as you do here. How could they ?
It’s simple logics.
I have a statistics, that i.e. the females oppose.
Whether it’s important - time will tell.
How are you going to convince intelligent,logical people about
the pandemic thread without having expert estimates ?
BTW. what’s your IQ, what’s your expertise in math or statistics ?
Why do you consider yourself competent to take such a strong position,
without even entering a discussion about the arguments ?
hey, wasn’t there a poster called “mathematician” here ? Where are they when you need them ?
So, “Anonymous”…WHAT is the answer? You seem to know that everybody here is wrong, in which case you know the correct answer. How’s about sharing it with us?
BroncoBill, the answer is: expert probability estimates should be given and discussed and are useful
I’ve devoted maybe .0001% of my “flu time” to gs’ and later anonymous’ “persistent query”. Here’s my assessment:
Hmm - I guess I’ve used up my .0001%. Bye and good luck!
I was writing while there was this “ad hominem” thing. Useless stuff if you ask me.
gs, I suggest you create a wikipage that will get more exposure. Maybe someone will take up the challenge.
And yes, you will need a username to edit the wikipage.
You only need to present the best possible case to persuade those who will run the survey. You know what’s needed: the questionaire, people who are trusted with keeping the anonymity of others, and a little time in their hands.
lugon amicably wonders if anonymous will feel empty after that
assuming that lugon just only spent 10 minutes on this, I calculate that his/her “flu time” amounts to more than 19 years of 24h days.
precise numbers don’t matter all that much, really ;)
Consider Indonesia alone. The first case was part of a cluster of 3. Now we have clusters of 8. The flu went from one double to 3 doubles in cluster size in 9 months.
There are people who believe that there are now 3 strains circulating there now. This is one double in the number of strains in about 9 months.
At what point will they loose control?
There are computer models which predict the spread of a pandemic strain. Those are, of course, mathmatically based.
The models must have some initial input parameter assumptions. Why can’t the experts take those assumptions and run the model backwards? If a Pandemic looks like “x” after “t” months, what does it look like if you use -t.
I imagine the model will not like that very much and may require some tweaking, but it’s a start, isn’t it?
Torange – at 10:21
This is exactly my pause at accepting any generated “likelihood numbers”
There is just too much information popping up that surprises folks in the field and on this site.
If this were to be a quasi-trusted number - I’d ask to remove the human component and model this bad boy in a grid network… or some chartered super computer.
Alas, there is still the specter of understanding HOW this virus works… everyone has been gosh darn sure it’s the migratory birds transmitting the virus - but now that “sure” fact is in dispute.
So even if it were possible to model this event and make predictions - ones made last week would now be useless (and the folks that followed it - potentially underprepared) because they followed predictions based on imperfect information.
I agree that stages are the best system (given the alternates) - if we were to start using % numbers - there’s always the fact you run into a “grading error” where you start saying, “Oh, I’m not prepping till it hits 40% likelyhood in 6 months.” But the problemn there is, actual risk is not calculated… so even though it never may hit 40% - The risk is huge because despite the % only hitting 39% IF it did hit - the costs are huge.
I’d much rather leave the stages broad and have folks prepare based on associated reasonable risk than have them follow a naked number that is interpretted as differently as the methods for generating it.
Just thought of an issue here:
Not to say prediction efforts are not worthwhile in development - I just think, given my comment above that there is a responsibility issue here as well.
Unless you can say the prediction model is far more likely to produce false positives than false negatives - I think there is an inherent danger in publicly persuing this endeavor.
Not that anyone would mean to - but what if the model failed completely? Though you got it to work in “post-predicting” the 1918 pandemic - it failed completely by greatly underestimating the threat potential?
How does that possibility register? What variance is acceptable when millions of lives are on the line?
I think that is an important point to consider.
Power hungry- It is not usually of much value to run models backwards. Let us take a simplistic example- Suppose after 3 months of running a model determined that everyone, everywhere was dead. Starting from this end point, there would be an infinite number of paths to get back to the beginning point where everyone was alive and a few were sick.
Torange. I agree.
Eccles, Quartsman, Power Hungry. Why use a model when we have the real thing working right in front of out eyes. Sometimes, I think models are used so that we don’t have to think and that statement is not said to reflect on the good analysis the three of you have been doing here. It was meant more for the agencies that run these models.
One thing is sure. This ongoing adaption and evolution of H5N1 should, in the future, provide all the needed data to make their computer modelling progrms work much better…problem is that for the first time in recent history, we are now the guinea pigs.
anonymous. You have given two predictions in respect to H5N1…the first was a probability of 1% per month and the second was a 50% chance in the next ten years. It appears to me that at a rate of 1% per month the probability would be 96% in 8 years which does not correlate with your second estimate….please explain the difference.
Everyone here brings something different and special to the Flu Wiki table and I appreciate what anonymous is trying to do and think it potentially has a great deal of merit.
At some level probablility estimates are made by everyone who is aware of the threat of H5N1. I don’t put a number on my estimate, but whatever my number might be, it is high enough to motivate me to spend a significant amount of money, time and effort in preparation. Businesses, too, must have some fuzzy number they come up with to decide if they are going to ignore this thing, hope it just goes away, or spend a significant amount of money, time and effort in preparation. Same with communities, states, nations, the WHO.
So I don’t think asking for an actual number is all that outrageous. Problematic and imperfect, yes; outrageous no. In fact, more I think about it, more I think it sounds reasonable. The U.S. must have based their decision to stage Tamiflu in the vicinity of Indonesia on some mathematical calculation that took into account what data there exists from past pandemics and what is currently happening in Asia, including any insider knowledge they have of viral sequences that we lesser mortals are not privy to.
But what are those numbers? What is that number? To get experts to give numbers would be very interesting, if nothing else. But maybe they don’t want to because of the panic that might ensue.
Anyway, thank you anonymous for your contributions to Flu Wiki. At first I didn’t think you were credible; I do now. And I admire your courage and tenacity in pursuing this issue in the face of such vehement criticism.
Tom DVM- This encounter might provide future generations with more data to help understand the situation, provided that the data was actually being taken, was placed into the public record, and then was not subsequently altered in an attempt to render a revisionist history of what happened and why we didn’t see it coming.
Note this comment by Sandman and Lanard in their latest article:
I thought of it as I read this post. We really are a sane pragmatic lot.
I think I understand anonymous. There are reasons for his monomania, and it has a value. It has been presented to the forum in varying ways, if it didn’t resonate at all those threads would have died long ago. I have no trouble with the uncertainties of this problem. Others for business reasons, and some for guidance want numbers.
“provided that the data was actually being taken, was placed into the public record, and then was not subsequently altered in an attempt to render a revisionist history of what happened and why we didn’t see it coming.”
I’m not betting on that happening.
You know Eccles you are absolutely right.
I have been doing a lot of thinking about this and I am convinced that they have been gambling that a pandemic was not going to happen.
In January 2005, they were shooting more **** then today. If you think of what was going on then vs now, the data set has been steadily getting worse for their opening position…but instead of changing, they are doggedly holding on to it. That level of rigidity requires them to conveniently (only becaue they can) start covering up scientific data that doesn’t agree with their opening position; a little at first, followed by a requirement to cover up more and more data. At each step along the way, they are trapped by their previously adjustment of the truth.
For those on flu wiki that think I am being to harsh with the WHO, I am going to refer them to you, because even I would not have thought of this angle…keep up the good work. /:-)
Tom DVM: I pray that you are wrong, but something in my instincts tells me that you are dead on.
…”they have been gambling that a pandemic was not going to happen.”..
I would basically swear this was the local officials’ position as late as last Oct. (possibly Dec.) -maybe some even now. De Nile pretty wide this year, still.
When the pandemic starts you won’t see this thread anymore so I love seeing it at the top of the page.
All comment that follow are IMHO - Models are primarily for board level executive summaries because chaos enters any equation based upon natural events, and policy makers like to appear to be in control and intelligent in the choices history records them making.
And everything in this situation is dynamic. It could be that the one person harboring the one mutated virus that can cause the pandemic will be hit by a truck and never spread the mutation - or that the mutations spontaneously occur in multiple hosts in the same time period in different locations and nothing stops the pandemic.
There are as many “ifs” as there are combinations of precursor events times the interaction of those precursor events with each other in raw reality. Lightning “should” strike a lightning rod instead of the roof of a building, but variability creeps into the situation some days and the building burns down around the lightning rod. Most of life is made up of making choices that seem the best at the moment, even for the WHO, CDC, USDA, Enron, or Florida Board of Elections. Usually we can live with the circumstances of being wrong.
Provided enough people survive being wrong this will be entertaining academic banter for future generations on when the virus became human vectored. For others, it will hopefully at least leave headstones. It just depends upon the level of compassion and action generated by the argument as to whether we are actually making a difference or just tuning up our fiddles while the flames advance on Rome.
If this turns into a pandemic, the next generations will bury all this data. What happened after 1918, the roaring 20′s. It would only resurface in the face of a similar threat, because the human race never seems to learn very much from the past.
We know that the bird flu is an exponential function but it is a fractal version of an exponential function. The rate of increase is not a smooth line but is very bumpy. The big picture from the trends is that the pandemic will start soon. When you have exponential increase in cluster sizes on top of exponential increases in the number of strains on top of exponential number of individual cases on top of exponential cases in animals in nature, things can move fast. We are in trouble and there is no obvious solution. We may have reached the crook in the hockey stick. Good luck and may God be with us.
Don’t take my observations as indications to give up by any means, just realize I don’t need a executive decree to decide not to tap dance in a mine field. Thanks to the wikie I have been warned. What I do with my knowledge is now my responsibility and up to my experience and decision making capacity. Most of the western world has never faced a true life-threatening situation with foreknowledge. That is why we watch Discovery adn History Channels on cable TV, and wonder how people survive the disasters we see there. This may be another learning moment.
As I have stated elsewhere, the WHO and similar national organizations have a great deal to lose professionally by predicting an epidemic if one does not happen. They have very little to lose by NOT predicting an epidemic if one happens. There is a systematic bias in favor of under-reporting and underplaying the legitimate level of concern. This situation would obtain even if the threat were not as highly variable and stochastic, even chaotic, as influenza in fact is. This highly variable threat makes the situation even worse.
Given the prediliction for under-reporting and underestimation of the real threat, cautious prudence suggests that this bias be recognized and allowed for. Simple epdemiological models are relatively easy to construct using Excel spreadsheets; more sophisticated models can be written in C++ in a day or so.
Sophisticated stochastic models are a lot more complex, but for the purposes of preparation and illustration, assume that one airliner (747)arrives in LAX with half of the passengers nonsymptomatic but infectious. Assume further that no infections occur in the LAX terminal building and that half of those infected travel separately to only 12 other airports and then ride public transit to the final destination. You will be amazed at how quickly the flu will infect 10% of the US population; it’s days, not weeks.
Scaredy Cat – at 12:15
:)
I didn’t think I’m being vehement - but I admit to being opininated and apologize if that’s raised anyone’s heart rate.
On another note, I must also admit I’ve shifted a bit from my original denial of the value in developing this info… But I still (obviously) have my reservations. ;)
For sure, I’d be last in arguing this topic shouldn’t be discussed (or argued). And I greatly appreciate the maturity of the discussion despite the clear differences in opinion.
In my mind, Anonymous has a worthy goal and I can respect our differences because they are so vital to keep near. Also, who knows? It may turn out, in the midst of chaos, Anonymous finds a jewel of life-saving info. So I can’t discourage his efforts - just express my thoughts for what ever value they hold. I think we all can agree with that…
I second Melanie’s observation of our sanity and pragmatism… and add the lowest common denominator of everyone visiting FluWikie (trolls aside) is a person sincerely concerned for human lives.
A community worth visiting regardless of our threat’s outcome.
Tray75 at 12:47: The journal article that was presented some time back that dealt with the likelihood of smothering an incipient pandemic with Tamiflu assumed that any initial success would be leavened by the certainty that if H5N1 made “the leap” once it would certainly do it again. In other words, we are only buying time. So let us say we get very lucky in Indonesia and snuff it out before it gets going. We have only bought time. And the authors of the study thought that the time bought would be at most, months. As Torange has ably elaborated on our current situation, we are in dire straits. Believe what you see (and what you don’t see) should be our mantra.
anonymous. You have given two predictions in respect to H5N1…the first was a probability of 1% per month and the second was a 50% chance in the next ten years. It appears to me that at a rate of 1% per month the probability would be 96% in 8 years which does not correlate with your second estimate….please explain the difference.
that’s because the probability per month goes down later.
When it won’t come in the next 5 years, then it is becoming more likely that
it “burns out” somehow, as in Vietnam. Or it causes some epidemics
like normal flu but doesn’t go pandemic.
We have seen some changes the last 12 months, I don’t expect H5N1 can
hold this speed. There is a chance that there just is no pandemic
strain in the genetic neighborhood of actual H5N1. But if there is one,
then it should have enough opportunity to show up in the next few years.
Another argument for lower probabilities in later years are advancements
in research, antivirals, vaccines, understanding how it spreads,
which might prevent a pandemic.
And the earthquake, and Mt. Meriap with the possible erruption impending. Perhaps nature is taking a quantum leap in other ways also.
I see some people switching sides… but strangely not for the reason I had expected, which is the swine-flu analysis by Neustadt+Fineberg,Neustadt+May which still hasn’t been addressed. Is someone interested in some links ?
Medical Maven – at 13:35
we will learn from that outbreak. We will improve our strategy to
recognize and contain later outbreaks. We will start making vaccine.
We will speed up our research. We will increase our investments
in panflu prevention and preparing.
Anonymous at 14:01 - Hogwash! your post sounds like the old And Then a Miracle Occurs term in some of the poorly constructed proofs I have analyzed in my day.
anonymous, at 08:45
“anon_22,Melanie,Eccles : just typical Anglo-American behaviour to attack the author instead of the arguments.”
FYI I am neither Anglo nor American.
Shows how assumptions based on limited data can be so far off the mark.
You need a futures market.
Lily ¨C at 12:54: If this turns into a pandemic, the next generations will bury all this data. What happened after 1918, the roaring 20¡äs. It would only resurface in the face of a similar threat, because the human race never seems to learn very much from the past.
Can’t say I agree with this, Lily. We have had some incredible medical advances thanks to horrible diseases (i.e. AIDS) and horrible events (wars).
I recently did some consulting for the VA Administration and they had, on site, a museum that showed the medical advances due to Civil War, Korean War, World War 1, World War II and the Vietnam War - everything from x-ray machines to medivac - all based on what went wrong and why alot of soldiers died during the various wars.
We know the same is true of the AIDS virus. There is alot of good medicine out there now that helps boost ones immune system that is not only used in AIDS but in various cancers and a wide assortment of other diseases. My mother was the recipient of one such drug.
So, my rebuttal would be that we, as a human race, just don’t BURY bad events and not learn from them. I think we learn a tremendous amount - I think we learned a whole hell of a lot from Katrina and 9/11 and already see some of the new advances that came about because of these horrible events (Homeland Security, etc.) Doesn’t mean we won’t continue to make bad mistakes and bad choices, but I think humans have a tendency not to get burned twice.
I would expect the same after a more current pandemic.
who is a political organisation,expect political behavior. media is corporate,expect a corresponding spin. as to whether or not who took a chance when deciding that h5n1 wouldn’t go pandemic;didn’t the current u.s. administration take the same approach with hurricane safety in n.o. to save money,only to get busted by katrina? you pays your money,you takes your chances. logic tells me to distrust power and do my own homework.
Lets do an expert prediction to see if it is useful. We will assume a semi traditional family: two boys and a girl, ages 15, 16, and 17. This seems appropriate for anonymous to understand. Now I want to predict if the children’s mother will yell at them on Saturday. The children are experts on their mother’s behavior. They have been living with her for a total of 48 years and they have closely observed her behavior. Therefore, as experts, we can ask each to predict her yelling at a family member on Saturday. The predictions are 90%, 70% and 50% the average prediction = 90+70+50 /3 = 70%. How useful is this prediction?
Well we have some problems don’t we. Mom may not be home. Perhaps she yells at one person more than another and the predictions are biased by different types of experiences with Mom. Perhaps the one who was going to be yelled at is not at home on Sat. Perhaps no one does anything that requires Mom to yell and on and on and on.
None-the-less these are experts and we demand a prediction. After all serious damage could results from Mon’s yelling.
Well my young ignorant acquaintance, does that help you in your infinite wisdom to see the problem of expert predictions? Demand all you want and receive and answer. Is the answer useful?
It was pointed out above that the odds of a particular house being hit by a tornado, even when you are in a tornado watch zone, are infintisimal. True. OTOH, four years ago I was in a tornado watch zone and my house was destroyed by a tornado and my wife was injured. So, what have I learned? S--- happens and it is smart to buy insurance and be prepared. If nothing happens you are not out much, but if it should happen it can mean the difference between surviving or not surviving. However, I have found that friends and family want some idea of what the risk is. So, to help sell preparing to them I DO use a figure of 15% as the liklihood of a pandemic occuring and a CFR of 1–2%. These number don’t have much, if any, scientific basis but I use them as a shorthand way of indicating that a pandemic is not necessarily a sure event but that it isn’t about as likely as winning the lottery either. I tell them that this is a heck of a lot higher than my chances of being wiped out by a tornado in 2002 was. I tell them that it is “a low probability event with such potentially terrible outcome” that being prepared just “makes sense” (just like buying wind insurance for your house made sense for me, despite the very low risk). I tell them that, while noone can say that H5N1 will go pandemic, there are some “clues” out there that should make you sit up and take notice, and maybe be pretty worried too. I have had the swine flu thrown up at me and I have responded by throwing Katrina back at them. People in New Orleans were warned about the risk of a hurricane wiping out their city—the N. O. Times Picayune ran just such a series on the risk a year or two prior to Katrina. There were some who paid attention and got “out of Dodge” when warned and others who ignored it and died (or sat for days in the sun on a freeway, or in feces and urine at the Convention Center)--I would rather be the former. John-Ohio (still can’t get my handle to post where it is supposed to)
anonymous too – at 16:02 - I see your point. Just don’t let this get personal. We are all stuck on the same rock (except 2 people currently in orbit) and some people hold science and math as dearly as religious conviction. You have a great way of expressing the uselessness of data, and a creative one. If I were to ask “What Are the Chances of an Asteroid Striking the Earth” science and math would come up with 100%. The “When” of the strike would be the variable? So it is with a pandemic even amongst the most critical of H5N1 watchers. The unknown driving us all nuts is the “When”.
Tray75. Exactly.
There was nothing personal. To be you and ignorant is part of life. To be stupid, a variable I did not discuss, that is another matter.
anonymous too – at 16:36
Now that’s just uncalled for…
:(
We can be above insults - it doesn’t make your point more valid and only lowers the opportunity for compromise or understanding.
anonymous too.
Your comments were uncalled for.
We consider all arguments for discussion here including yours…and we do it with mutual respect.
for goodness sake please pick a ‘handle’ for yourselves instead of having a host of anonymouses. It doesn’t have to be fancy or ‘deep’ call yourself peanut or 28 or marbles- whatever, anything.
It does nothing to promote understanding to have multiple anonymous postings from many people.
I would rather be insulted by someone with a handle than an anon.
Janet, I agree with you entirely, except I meant something different.
Actually something seems to be amiss, might be one of those low tolerance days today. The moon was merely a sliver last night so its not a full moon.
Lily at 17:04, :-)
anonymous too – at 16:36 - Everyone has an opinion. A truly wise man can even learn from one thought a fool. Insult me if it makes you better able to handle the stress. I had my breakdown here a few weeks ago, and found support and comfort, so I’m not going anywhere. I probably won’t live through a pandemic, but my point in being here is to give what I can so that others may. And I see that same support still exists. I may not agree with the way you say things, but you have every right to say them if it is to help prepare or cope.
In defense of gs (aka “anonymous”, etc.), I can honestly say he has always created some thought-provoking posts, and IMHO has never tried to mislead anyone. In fact, I was most impressed by his virus-sequencing posts on previous threads. He obviously knows something about tracking the changes in this particular virus. Maybe there is someone out there that can answer his queries on probabilities. For my part, I continue to look at this virus as a low probability high impact sort of occurence. I can’t put numbers to it, but I believe the chances of a H5N1 pandemic happening are higher than my house burning down (although the more gas I store in anticipation of a pandemic, the higher my chances are of my house burning down! Not to worry though, I’m not storing it IN my house). What I’ve always felt is that I want to protect my wife, children and myself from dying the kind of horrible death that the avian flu would bring. So perhaps I am motivated by emotions much more than rational thinking in this case. I believe that there are times when emotions are better at telling you what to do than reason. These emotions are nature’s “short-hand” for elaborate instructions. You can either read the short-hand or ignore it and pursue more elaborate instructions (based on mathematics, perhaps) on what to do. Of course, you need more time to pursue the more elaborate instructions. Everything has its price. Still, I enjoy reading gs’s “quest” for the perfect probabilities. May he and all others who need them find them in time.
The reference to young and ignorant was to anonymous. But with regard to ignorance, note that everyone is ignorant, just on different topics. Insult implied or otherwise and simple obstinance are part of anonymous’s posts. Reap what you sow.
anonymous too – at 17:30 - thanks for clearing up the “anonymous” mix up. Keeping track of all the anon’s is going to require we hand out numbers soon! And that, for the moment, I will accept as my ignorance in not knowing the difference.
I dearly hope the next forum, no matter its form, eliminates all these anonymous posters. How many of them are there? On occasion I can see posting something under ‘anonymous’ for something particularily revealing. And yes, mistakes happen and people on occasion forget to type in their name (I have), but if you are a regular poster here, in my opinion, its rather rude to not give yourself a name or number to make the conversations less confusing.
Hi All,
In manufacturing, substitute measures are used for control\ charts where the gathering of data for the activity is not\ viable. This may be as simple as validating the effect of an\ action.
In the absence of sufficient or precise data to predict the\ probability of a pandemic and with the given that it is designed\ to influence a change in behaviour (be prepared) could one\ substitute with the trend in opinion of a sufficient body of\ experts?
For instance:#. Compared with your assessment at October 2005 do you now\ believe a pandemic is less likely (0) or more likely (1)in 3\ years, 5 years?
Ah but who remembers. I don’t.
Yes I do. Less likely soon. More likely later.
gs, please move on to do something practical with the questions … unless Quartzman is right in saying this: Unless you can say the prediction model is far more likely to produce false positives than false negatives - I think there is an inherent danger in publicly persuing this endeavor.
It’s something I had thought of, myself. Not that I’m sure. But, you know, before looking at probabilities you have to look at possibilities. Just an example: throw a dice and you have 6 possibilities. Presumably with equal probabilities so it’s one sixth for each. Now, throw an irregular object, and you have many more possibilities - and only after you have the possibilities can you start to think about probabilities.
Of course, your questions are worded so that they have definite (and comparable) answers. Which is good in a way.
Now, I also noticed you suggested 1, 2 and 3 years. Why not further than that? Possibly because in 3 years we might have a new invention that makes “vaccines for all, in a week” real? Just around the corner, and the future (our image of it) changes dramatically.
Trouble is, the future might not be linear at all, starting today (and not just in 3 years time).
I have a problem with the future. In my mind there are at least three kinds of future:
I’m not sure what kind of future is H5N1’s future. And it might help in thinking about possibilities, probabilities, etc. Any ideas?
I can understand the want/need/desire to have numbers attached to the potential of our experiencing a panflu at a certain time. I also would be interested in seeing the odds. But, I live in a state in which I can gamble in the lottery, and I only risk one dollar when the pot reaches $30 million or greater…so you see how bad MY odds are…but alas, I am a first-born child and have great need for control and/or the illusion of such.
I am sure “experts” are currently working on so many possibilities and probabilities that the stats are confounding. I would have every grad student working on every potential variable. And I would expect that many are glued to their keyboards “working the numbers.”
It just might not be so useful to publically announce their results. I’m not sure we have enough firm data to do so yet. Perhaps revealing the unknown sequences would be a good first step. To use an analogy, we seem to have a systemic “macular degeneration” which has left us with a huge blind spot right in the middle of our vision. Restricted vision results in a major handicap. How do you make accurate predictions with antiquated data? And I would assume in virology, antiquated data is anything greater than a few hours old. Some of our last sequences are years old.
I can see an inherent danger in publishing predictions based on a multitude of variables. I was taught to publish information for general consumption with the assumption that the highest educational level was 4th grade. I would assume that those of us on the wiki generally have a bit more education than that and we would perhaps welcome a thought-provoking prediction.
But those who may take such information literally or concretely may indeed panic. I’m not sure of the statistics, nor do I necessarily equate education with intelligence, but I would surely think that there would be more people with less education than more. Would a large scale panic benefit anyone?
The difference today vs. 1918 is the ability to transmit information (accurate or INaccurate) in seconds. Panic is an emotional response; it follows no logic. It is already difficult to stop false rumors re: panflu. IMO, publish the facts. But don’t hide them either. And that seems to be our problem.
a’Akova – at 15:20
You need a futures market.
yes !
And high volume betting markets.
And insurances, who insure companies against panflu loss.
concerning the anonymous names and handles. I assume this is the result of people’s behaviour including moderators in earlier threads. Gs has been marked as troll, insulted, thrown to dungeon, they started a thread: “is gs a 12 year old sociopath” at curevents. Maybe this thread hadn’t been started without being able to use ananymous as handle. Imagine gs starting to contact CDC,WHO or magazines to start the probability estimates project. If they find those threads, won’t they be worried about their own image ? They would just see the posts and insults, they have not the time to figure out whether they are justified. There is clearly a reason why most people here, even those who are running this site are staying anonymous. And one can only advice everyone to do the same.
anonymous at 20:27,
It would be useful if you would choose a handle, too, please.
gs is an old contributor to this site and we are all familiar with his work and his questions. He is not without insight.
anonymous. First of all, our mutual friend gs chose to use his real name. Maybe wasn’t a good idea but in the large scheme of things it doesn’t change anything…nobody remembers names in a short period of time.
It doesn’t matter what happened on current events, gs is held in great affection on flu wiki as the comments indicate.
Time to pick an anonymous name…I would suggest Mr. Spock because he was a bear for detail as well.
Maybe our mutual friends can suggest other names for this anonymouse.
All he is is a mathemetician. He has his own way of looking at matters, and that is all there is to it.
Gs has been marked as troll, insulted, thrown to dungeon, they started a thread: “is gs a 12 year old sociopath” at curevents.
This isn’t curevents and people have debated with gs (and each other too BTW) on a variety of issues. I don’t consider him a troll and have enjoyed both agreeing and disagreeing with him at various times, he has never been banned here.
A handle like mine and many others is anonymous while being distinctive from the rest of the posters, that’s the point really.
A question, is it reasonable to expect experts to give probabilities based on incomplete (IMO) data under their true name with their professional reputations at stake when the person asking the questions won’t even reveal his/her true name? Think about it.
I’d like to add that disagreeing with someone’s opinion on a particular subject does not = a lack of respect. It’s just a simple difference of opinion.
Excellent point MaMa as always.
Something that suits, like data bank, or his favorite character or personage in history, or in mathematics.
I think the problem why most people oppose that idea is that they don’t realize that probabilities are only, well, probabilities. Assigning numbers to them -no matter how many decimals that number has- won’t change that. In practice a probability of 10% or 10.231% is hardly a difference, while on the other hand 0.001 or 0.00001 is very much different. When you say an event has 80% probability, then it may not happen with 20% and if so people will notice and might question that previous estimate. On the other hand when the expected happens then they won’t take much notice. That’s the reason why people usually overestimate the chances of outsider wins and lottery-wins. Losing a bet or being wrong occasionally with a probability estimate is normal and no sign of incompetency, except when you are wrong lots of times. We all should use probability estimates more often in normal conversation. It clarifies what we mean. It doesn’t imply that we have some advanced knowledge and put lots of thought in it. Just a language tool to express ourseves instead of using unclear words like : maybe, probably, we cannot exclude that,it may happen,…. Lots of expressions had been invented to describe probability estimates without having to assign numbers. But numbers are more suitable to communicate your thoughts to others.
Only if you have a mathematical bent, and most people don’t.
Thanks Tom DVM.
anonymous, when you say ‘We all should use probability estimates more often in normal conversation. It clarifies what we mean. It doesn’t imply that we have some advanced knowledge and put lots of thought in it. Just a language tool to express ourseves instead of using unclear words like : maybe, probably, we cannot exclude that,it may happen,…. Lots of expressions had been invented to describe probability estimates without having to assign numbers. But numbers are more suitable to communicate your thoughts to others.’
you’re doing the same thing, you just feel more comfortable thinking of things and expressing them in terms of numbers, that’s what works for you. Language is what a higher proportion of the population responds to though. To me, if it’s got numbers it MUST be a measurable thing- my mind doesn’t deal well with uncertainties in numbers. IMO alot of people have trouble with the idea that a probability doesn’t have a particular certainty of outcome. It’s not right or wrong either way, just a difference in wiring.
I respectfully suggest ‘Master of Probabilities’ as a handle, though Lily’s suggestions are great as well.
Dear friends, gs/anonymous will not take up a new handle precisely because you are asking him to. He’s flipping the bird and smiling every time one of our esteemed colleagues like Tom DVM suggests a name like Spock - good one Tom!
I too, feel that gs is far from being a troll. Argumentative, bright? Sure. I really think he occasionally enjoys sticking his finger in the eye of those he feels deserve it.
“enjoys sticking his finger in the eye of those he feels deserve it”
Who doesn’t? I’ve done it a thousand times.
The problem is that such conduct is usually not conducive to a productive dialogue. Short term satisfaction. Long term frustration.
Is there any probability that this thread will discuss the header topic?
Interested in an approach that will assist with focusing ‘Joe Public’ on the pandemic issue and preparing to survive.
MaMa – at 21:11
“It’s not right or wrong either way, just a difference in wiring.”
Who are you?!? :-) That is an observation so obvious it was begging to be said.
Thank you!
So really, that makes sense because there isn’t much else that can explain why we can’t reach some middle ground.
And as an ENFP - (only 2% of the US is like me - or I’m only like 2%… you get the idea..) - I can appreciate that this may be more than a perspective difference.
So please, let’s just let Anonymous work this out. I still feel it should be handled carefully, but the argument can’t be “won” on either side. :)
KevinNZ – at 21:38
yes. The thread was about how they handled this in the swine-flu
affaire and its later analysis and conclusions and what we can learn
from it for the actual situation with H5N1.
mmmmelody. Thanks on the ‘Spock’ thing but it was not my idea. I believe someone mentioned it last night on this thread but I can’t find who to attribute it to.
This is unlike me, but I suggest that this thread be ignored, rather than closed. Attention seems to fuel gs’s engines and we should cut off his supply. Nothing productive has emerged from his prevocations and it is unlikely that this will, either. Nothing to see here, move along.
Melanie is calling to ignore the claim and trying to disturb the thread and then she complains that “nothing productive has emerged”. The one who was most unproductive here was her. Just crying “no data” but never seriously arguing or answering. I’m still wondering what’s the real reason that she doen’t want expert probability estimates. Would that detract attention from fluwiki ? Could the estimates be too low, so people would no longer be interested to prep ? So far expert estimates were lower than estimates of fluwiki members in the fluwiki-survey.
Quartzman, I’m just an INFP chick who finally saw the light:-)
anonymous, I have a suggestion. Maybe you should consider formulating a set of questions that you feel would be useful and presenting a questionnaire to some of the experts relevant to the study of H5N1. From the completed questionnaires you could figure out the probabilities and present them to us here on the forum. Then we could discuss what our thoughts were on the results. What do you think?
I for one am always interested in a probability estimate. I would want to fully understand how the numbers came about. It most likely will not change my mind overall unless there where different sources to back it up, but it would be apart of my planning if I found the data sound. I am data orientated and would not take any prediction serious without data.
MaMa, it won’t work. Experts won’t answer. We need the panels as in 1976 or some magazine or research-group like Tuft’s working on it. We need more people to ask these questions to experts, people who require politicians and journalists to ask these questions to experts. Write to your representatives as with the sequences-withholding-thing. This one is even more important. It was done and recommended in 1976. We are being kept in the dark about the likelyhood of that pandemic.
Nldaho,have you ever tried to ask an expert this question ? Please do it. Not that I expect they would give a number, they will likely use unclear wordings, if they answer at all. But it shows public interest to get those numbers and if enough people ask, they will have to think about it. You will easily find the email-addresses of most experts.
Maybe we should put a bug in the ear of some different magazines, to organize a poll.
If the experts truly won’t answer then I don’t know what else you could try.
I’m off to bed, g’night all…
you could offer them money. You could allow them to stay anonymous. You could urge them by public or government pressure. You could form the panels as in 1976. That they truly don’t want to answer could be some political directive, some temporary style. They did answer in 1976. If public really wants the answer then it could get it.We first have to rise the general panflu-probability-awareness-level. Some discussion about the problem in newspapers and journals like the Fischhoff-report might help. (I hope) We have the poll from the 565 US-physicians, from the fluwiki-survey, from curevents and these numbers differ a lot. I.e. people here and at Curevents are much more pessimistic than the US-physicians. Don’t you want to see the same poll with H5N1-experts ?
And in 1976 they were wrong.
guenther,
the chance of a pandemic is greater than zero. That is the only number we have.
Melanie-
Don’t you believe that the GBS-inducing swine flu vaccine also prevented the tremendous death toll of the 1976 pandemic influenza?
NS1,
I’m not a scientist, I’m a writer, and I have no idea. What I’m marking out here at Flu Wiki is the human cost of the failure to understand pandemic and to help others to plan.
Anonymous, you have a problem. You solve it.
Melany,
It’s not clear whether they were wrong in 1976.
Maybe the decision to vaccinate was correct and reasonable
given their knowledge at that time.
But if it was wrong, we could still learn from it.
And that is what the analysis of Neustadt+Fineberg is about.
And that is why the CDC still refers to even that analysis in their
smallpox vaccinating directive.
Also we do have some more numbers already. The fluwiki-survey,
the physicians-poll, the Fischhoff-paper, the Webster interview
were already mentioned. Among others.
And I’m not “guenther”. Name calling won’t help you here anyway.
You are wrong. There is some data, we do have numbers other than zero.
But we urgently need more.
lugon, the whole world has a (pandemic) problem. Let’s cooperate to reduce its expected impact.
Anonymous, you have a problem. The problem is, in my respectful opinion, “how can I move from asking people to do things to doing them myself?”
Your “let’s cooperate”, when turned into actions, appears to mean “I ask that others move this forward”. It really does look like you feel you’re weaker than everyone else. I tend to call this “complain mode”. You’re not moving forward much, really.
You might go to an internet cafe and choose a handle so that you can create a wikipage on fluwikie.com and write your proposal in full, taking all things into consideration, acknowledging that you have listened to other people (that way people may be more prone to see your point, which is not the only way to look at things), and then create noise as apropriate.
You want to stay anonymous? Is that the problem, really? Use stuff written by other people, not your own words.
You really have an interesting problem in your hands. You’ll have to solve it directly or indirectly, but I honestly don’t know how. Good luck!
lugon, many people can achieve more than one.
It’s not a problem which I ask you to solve for my pleasure.
It’s a problem that gs (and probably others) figured out is an
important one to be attacked in these prepandemic times.
He volunteers his time to help you (us all) and not vice versa.
Gs did ask many experts already without much success.
When you say “you are not moving forward” you could as well
say “we are not moving forward”. What’s your contribution here ?
Was it successful ? I can send a long list of gs-activities and
hundredth of hours spent without payment.
The anonymous posting is to reduce debate about
personal issues as sadly happened before and is
still happening here despite my attempt to keep it out.
What do you think would have happened if gs had posted this
thread ? The Melanies and Anon_22s and female catlovers
here would have thrown it to dungeon immediately. Just
from the history of gs posts and behaviour before,
which for some reason they don’t like.
Creating a wikipage could be an idea, but then why not
post it to the forum so it can be commented and discussed ?
People are not walking through wikipages and then find stuff
occasionally. They follow links or search for keywords
and this can be done with the forum as well.
Still better would be sending copies to CDC,HHS,WHO,…
but we know, they tend to ignore emails.
However someone said they were monitoring the fluwiki forum
frequently…
Your final “good luck” sounds like “goodbye, you are on your own”
There’s the physical possibility, for anyone with internet access, to create the suggested wiki page at http://www.fluwikie.com - full with the compiled summary and a growable list of surveyable people, maybe even with replies as you or someone else receives them. There’s the possibility to link to that wikipage from here, and keep it active (and visible) by telling the world about every step and who reacts or who doesn’t.
OK. Nobody wanted to know about the 1976 data, so here it is ;-)
http://www.fluwikie.com/pmwiki.php?n=Science.LessonsFromTheSwineFlu1976
Anon, here in the U.S. kids in supermarkets can’t even figure out your change in a purchase. They depend on the machine, don’t calculate in their heads at all, the way we that are older do. But most of us, and I think the majority of females are not mathematically inclined, and thinking mathematically as is normal for you, is just not our bag, no matter how important it might be in your analysis of the situation. Therefor, while you are comfortable with this manner of thinking, we are not, and are extremely resistant to any prodding.
Lily,then why do they oppose to the subject when they feel incompetent ? They can say that they don’t like my behaviour or language style or whatever. No problem. Just they shouldn’t interrupt the threads with ridiculous arguing and requiring them to be closed or ignored or sent to dungeon.
People want probibilities so-
Unless the trends in Indonesia are reversed the probibility is 100%.
The probibility for pandemic in 2006 is less than 100%
You have to ask them. Curevents is curevents, Flu wiki is flu wiki. People just like to jump in with their views. You think like you do obviously with mathematical projections. They can’t possibly understand how you think. Best not to argue, just barge ahead. Those of us who have been here a long time do understand even if we give you backtalk. Obviously Dem from Ct. understands.It hurts, but if you believe what you are about, thats all that counts.
Melanie – at 04:12
I was just making a light joke.
Of course, the decision makers missed the mark in 1976 and produced a vaccine that permanently damaged a portion of the population.
a very small portion, if any. Do you think the decision was wrong ?
lugon and all,
see this page:
http://www.fluwikie.com/pmwiki.php?n=Science.EstimatesAboutAFluPandemic
please comment. You can edit and improve the wording.
The recent success with getting sequence data gives new hope
that some experts might finally also give probability estimates !
It would be useful if some reknowned person would host the project, (not much work) whom the experts can trust with the anonymity issue. I think, it’s important to offer them the option to stay anonymous.
Known people? Declan Butler? Can anyone contact him? Reveres? Other bloggers?
statistics will be displayed once there are at least 5 expert estimates. Asuming no-one’s behind is left uncovered (i.e. if there are five replies, four with level 1 and one with level 2, then that means level 2 is a level 1 in practice) :)
Re estimating the odds: does that mean the panels of experts were in fact created in 1976? Where are those documents? Could it be (tin-foil hat) that those comitees are in fact active now and there’s a number (or a set of numbers) which are being hidden?
It looks like “the number” is just a way to start the conversation regarding “why different numbers? what do we assume?”. Is that it? Because I know I wouldn’t trust the number itself. But the conversation around it would be useful.
Just like when planners say “the value is in the planning process, not in the actual plan document”.
>Known people? Declan Butler? Can anyone contact him? Reveres? >Other bloggers?
yes. gs also mailed to numbers guy from wall street journal, no answer yet. Or the fluwiki (Melanie ? ;-) or flutracker, or CDC,WHO,HHS,CIDRAP,ECDC,… Our favourite would have been Dr.Alexander, alas he died some months ago.
>statistics will be displayed once there are at least 5 expert >estimates. Asuming no-ones behind is left uncovered (i.e. if >there are five replies, four with level 1 and one with level 2, >then that means level 2 is a level 1 in practice) :)
yes, I hope it is unlikely. We could say: at least 3 with level >=2
>Re estimating the odds: does that mean the panels of experts were >in fact created in 1976? Where are those documents?
yes, that is one of the reasons why I started this thread. We added the URL now to the wiki. What was good in 1976 can’t be bad now ?!
>Could it be (tin-foil hat) that those comitees are in fact >active now and there is a number (or a set of numbers) which >are being hidden?
quite possible. Not the same committee and the same people, though. And not only in USA. Not also, that experts occasinally give numbers privately (Garcia Sastre,Osterhaus) but not in public. However once it is common to give estimates and discuss them, there is no more reason to stand aside and keep your estimates secret.
>It looks like -the number- is just a way to start the conversation >regarding -why different numbers? what do we assume?-. Is that it?
yes, I hope some discussion like that will evolve
>Because I know I would not trust the number itself. But the >conversation around it would be useful. >Just like when planners say the value is in the planning process, >not in the actual plan document.
In theory they should finally agree on one number. I hope the deviation at least would go down.
would a public list of “contactables” do any good? there are people who go to scientific meetings and so on …
maybe even suggest that they do it among themselves and give them the tools to do it?
Perhaps you could go for a trusted agency instead of a ‘known trusted person’to gather and analyse the probability data from “the panel”.
For instance, there are several agencies that run ‘internal customer’ questionnaires for departments like IT and Finance. The responders are all anonymous to the department/organisation being surveyed. The survey agency may also be useful in framing the questions.
yes. Or there should be one online-agency from Microsoft or Yahoo or google or such, which automatically collects the data, checks the email, and displays the statistics according to the anonymity level. A list of emails is entered beforehand and only estimates from these emails are accepted. But we would still need some pressure or incentive for experts to participate. And an attached forum to discuss the estimates. Or better 2 forums, one for experts only and one for everyone.
Closed due to length. Conversation is continued here.
Closed due to length. Conversation is continued here.